The Smiley Smile Message Board

I know The Beatles are the best  ;D not because of what the critics say but just because they had an over-all better career than anyone else that ever entered the industry & because they are one of the most influential figures in history ...
Most of their songs are innovative and catchy.
They inspired most of the people we listen to and praise highly.
but just like everyone else they had a few disastrous songs as well.. ;)
What 5 Beatles songs do you consider the worst in their catalog?

Maxwell's Silver Hammer
Honey Don't
Mr. Moonlight
I'm Down
Doctor Robert
Savoy Truffle
The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill
Glass Onion....


I could go on. They aren't perfect.  ;D

Hey i love I'm Down ,Doctor Robert(though it's cheesy lol) and Glass Onion  ;D..Actually i like all of those except Honey Hon't and Maxwell's Silver Hammer lol...What about Honey Pie? ..Yellow Submarine? Octopus's Garden?  :lol

If You've Got Trouble.

that's my favorite ringo appearance though :) he sung his ass off!

Hypehat, you're nuts.

why?

Your Mother Should Know.

Revolution #9

those are horrible ones  :-[

Revolution 9 is amazing.

I'm nuts? There are plenty of Beatles songs I don't like. Hell, there are plenty of Beach Boys songs I don't like!

:brow

I'm serious. 60's tape loops for the masses? The insane 'dialogue'? Atonal noise on a multi-million selling record by the biggest group in the world at the time? It's amazing!

9 kicks ass, Hypehat tells the truth

Let's get to the real problems - ie "Don't pass me by", WTF

And She's a woman, dear lord

she's a woman aint so bad..it's definately not the worst...how about piggies?Why Don't We Do It In the Road?For You Blue? ???

Piggies is great - "in their styes with all their backing, they don't care..."

I'll see your "Do it..." and raise you one "Wild Honey Pie"

YIKES!  :o I forgot about that piece of ish lol....ok it'll be wrong of me if i didnt mention this dud "Boys" lol

Yep, Boys is definitely a dud.

For You Blue is ok, kinda stupid, but y'know, I can listen to it. Why Don't We Do It In The Road - also amazing, but then I like Macca when he's goofing off. Have you listened to his first solo record? You would probably hate it  ;D

As crazy as it might sound to you i enjoy half of his first album :) he was always my favorite beatle but the strange thing is my favorite songs are mostly Lennon compositions...(Free As A Bird,Do You Want to Know a Secret,This Boy,Don't Let Me Down,Across The Universe)

Yeah, was just thinking you might not appreciate the goofy side of him. I might spin that later, actually. It's lovely.

1/ Being for the benefit of Mister Kite. (all time stinko)
2/ Revolution #9 (Frank Zappa did this kind of stuff so much better)
3/ Happiness is a warm gun. (ran out of decent song ideas? Just lump a bunch of fragments together into one unlistenable mess- don't worry, as you're a Beatle many will hail it as genius).
4/ Run for your life. (Horrible, nasty lyrics)
5/ Only a Northern song. (George Martin wasn't too keen on it either)

At least Macca waited 'till he was out of The Beatles before he started putting out crap.

Happiness Is A Warm Gun kicks ass!  ;D Maybe you haven't been listening to it the right way. Check this out: http://www.4shared.com/music/N-iupZ1P/08_Happiness_Is_a_Warm_Gun_2__.html  8)

Sun King because they ripped off Fleetwood mac. That's below them.  :( >:(

I Love Mr Kite off Sgt Pepper

No way, The Return of the Son of Mike's Beard - the harmonicas etc on the intro evoke a march of hedgehogs as formidable as the Ride of the Valkyries, let alone the key use of highhat.

And, not to mention the declaration of ten somersets, whatever the heck they might be  :lol

it takes time to get into his granny music :)

happiness is a warm gun has one of the best outros the beatles ever did :) ..that song is definitely influenced by frank zappa as well...and omg i forgot all about beingi for the benefit of mister kite(scary circus music)
run for your life ruined rubber soul from being a perfect album and the other song the one that ringo sings one as well (forgot the name of it)

sun king is so beautiful and melodic :)

Dang, I love Your Mother Should Know. I dig those types of Paul songs though. For my money Maxwell's Silver Hammer is by far the worst thing in the catalog. I think I might perceive it as worse than it is because it represents the direction he would take through most of his solo career. There are gems on almost every Macca album, but the overall output is a bit too bland for me.

In my opinion they make a case for being the only band that doesn't have a bad song in their catalog.  The reason being is because in my opinion even if the lyrics aren't there there is something in the performance that makes it worth listening to.  "Mr. Moonlight" plods along at the pace of a snail but John's vocal on it throughout is just amazing.  "Little Child" may be the definition of a throwaway pop song but again that vocal on it is incredible. 

i love little child :( it reminds me of our dog!

Not just the vocal - I remember getting one of those really thick old Capitol pressings of Meet The Beatles at a flea market...playing the whole thing, one of the highlights of an admittedly "lesser" track on the album was John's harmonica solo. That solo cooks! It jumped out of the ol' hi-fi, I remember lifting the needle and replaying the solo several times.

And Mr. Moonlight...agreed, it's a lesser cover overall, but John's vocal intro is one of the *best* vocals he's ever done. The first thing you hear knocks you out, then the record sort of drops in intensity, but how could it live up to that vocal intro, anyway? Paul's theater organ solo break, I always loved the tone and feel of that. Two key elements like those make a lesser song memorable, such was the brilliance of the Beatles.

You're right, John...every Beatles song has *something* that makes it worth your attention. If there are exceptions, like a song that offers practically nothing of interest, I can't think of them in what they released.

i guess the reason why i love the beatles is because i feel like it's been a big part of my life since i was a child my parents would play it constantly so most of their songs reminds me of different parts of my life and many memories come with it :)

"You know my name look at the number","revolution #9","what's the new mary jane","wild honey pie","Dig it"..

You know I'd be remiss at this point not to talk a little bit about the "Beatles For Sale" LP which I think if you ask most Beatles fans what their least favorite Beatles LP is (minus "Yellow Submarine" which really doesn't count) most will hand over "Beatles For Sale".  It's not that it's a bad album but when compared with the lofty standards that The Beatles set for themselves there seems to be a crucial element missing.  It's not that the songwriting isn't there but the entire album (with a few notable exceptions) just seems to have a very weary tone to it.

The album starts off with three very dark tracks.  "No Reply" is a strong song while "I'm A Loser" is a candidate for one of John's best pieces of writing during this period and "Baby's In Black" isn't exactly bad although it doesn't purport to be anything other than what The Beatles termed it when they played it in concert: a waltz.  The issue is that for a band that was making it's stock and trade in energetic beat music, starting off the "Beatles For Sale" LP with these three tracks kind of leaves the listener feeling as if they are stuck in neutral.  

Things pick up greatly with John's cover of Chuck Berry's "Rock And Roll Music" which obviously deserves enshrinement as one of the best Beatles covers ever and another one that in at least my opinion they topped the original (something they were in the habit of doing).  "I'll Follow The Sun" is actually a nice ballad from Paul even if he technically wrote the same song twice ("I'll Be On My Way").  The aforementioned dirge like "Mr. Moonlight" follows before side one of the LP wraps up with another incredibly strong cover this time by Paul McCartney of "Kansas City" in the style of Little Richard.

Side two fares far better than it's predecessor as it starts off with the only seminal classic from this LP "Eight Days A Week".  I know in later years John Lennon was frustrated that they had to work hard to make a good record out of "Eight Days A Week" but they did indeed do that and it speaks well of the band and the song.  "Words Of Love" would fall in the same dirge like category of "Mr. Moonlight" if it wasn't for the strong writing on the part of Mr. Holly.  Likewise "Honey Don't" is one of Carl Perkins' better tracks, affectionately performed here by Ringo Starr.  I'm a huge fan of both "Every Little Thing" and "I Don't Wanna Spoil The Party".  Both are very underrated Beatles tracks and largely unknown likely due to their placement on this record.  

"What You're Doing" is mostly a throwaway track but generally inoffensive and unlike a number of tracks on this album, it does possess an infectious beat.  The album closes with an absolutely horrid cover of Carl Perkins' "Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby".  I understand that George Harrison was a huge fan of Perkins but both the fact that the song isn't exactly the best song Carl ever wrote along with the inability of The Beatles to elevate it in any way shape or form makes it one of the more unremarkable closers in the Beatles canon.

So there you have it, "Beatles For Sale".  Again in summation, it's not necessarily a bad album at all in terms of songwriting or even the covers they choose to fill it out with.  The issue with "Beatles For Sale" lies entirely in it's tone.  Perhaps they were trying to beat the holiday rush or perhaps they just had exhausted their cache of truly top shelf material on "A Hard Day's Night" but the tone set for "Beatles For Sale" is one of a sluggish listen which is why I believe a lot of Beatles fans rank it as their least favorite record by the band.

The only Beatles song I don't really like that much is The Long and Winding Road.

Agreed.

why?

I say this 100% honestly: Beatles For Sale is actually one of my favorite go-to Beatles albums, the one I'll reach for more often to get a fix of the Beatles. I can't explain why, but it just is.

Least favorite is hard, very tough to call. I certainly wouldn't put Beatles For Sale *anywhere* behind Yellow Submarine or Let It Be.

Honestly, besides the title track and Get Back, what on Let It Be can stand next to the average track on Beatles For Sale?

The fact that the Beatles were world-weary, were tired, and were barely able to sneak in studio time while touring the world might have something to do with why I like the performances. The album sounds good, minus a few exceptions.

Let It Be the overall album sounds forced, lifeless, and cold. EXCEPT the title track, which is an absolute masterpiece, a fantastic record. And Get Back, which rocks like a motherfucker.

my least favorite albums are definately "beatles for sale" & "let it be" i felt like their last album is the worst...at least go out with a bang!....my favorite is "magical mystery tour"..then "rubber soul" then "white album"

As far as all-time favorites, I liked them before I knew who Geoff Emerick was! But it's hard to top in any era of rock and pop that handful of albums that Geoff Emerick engineered, including Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, and all related singles in between, then coming back again for Abbey Road.

It was a near-perfect combination of a band wanting to break new ground and a young, a *really young* engineer who had the same things in mind. Nothing couldn't be tried, nothing was off-limits. The time the Beatles were reaching an artistic and creative peak lined up at the exact moment they needed those technical people around them who were willing to go outside the regulations and standards and try new things. What a match.

Beatles, Emerick, Martin, 66-67...phenomenal.

Absolutely.

I think the only album that doesn't quite match up to the rest for me is the first one. There are great songs on it, but it does sound cheap or it reveals that it was made cheaply (because it was). Yes, that does have its charm (which is why the album is still great despite not matching up to the rest) but The Beatles did more with more.

What Goes On

To be fair, Abbey Road was their last album, so they did go out with a bang. Let It Be was shelved (as "Get Back") because they weren't happy with how things were going. It was to be released before Abbey Road. Spector was asked to complete it, unbeknownst to the Beatles themselves. The album was released after they were broken up.

so abbey road was their last true album?
why did they even release let it be?...well at least let it be has some of the greatest songs they ever did like across the universe & don't let me down. :D

I tend to agree. The only thing that partially saves it for me is George's guitar picking.

Honey Pie is dreadful. Til There Was You is so boring. Doctor Robert is pretty far down there, especially when considering the material on Revolver.

Don't Let Me Down isn't on Let It Be.

OH sh*t!! then just across the universe :/

No, but the album has some great songs - Let It Be, Get It Back, I've Got a Feeling, Two of Us, Across The Universe. Those are all great.

"Get Back" was pretty well fully recorded in I believe January of 1969. They didn't start work on Abbey Road until April of 1969. As I said, they were not happy with how "Get Back" had turned out, so they shelved it until December of 1969. It was eventually given to Phil Spector to finish and he added all of the overdubs and stuff and Apple released it as Let It Be in May of 1970.

Don't Let Me Down is the B side to the Get Back single.

As far as them being lesser tunes compared to what surrounds them on those albums, I tend to agree, but I'd like to illustrate the point we were bouncing around in earlier posts about the Beatles being able to add that elusive something to a song to make it worth a listen:

Honey Pie: Retro, song-and-dance 20's/30's vibe for sure, you can only take that schtick so far as I'm sure all the soul singers who currently wish to sound more like Otis Redding than themselves will find out soon (sorry... :)). But that guitar solo...that's John Lennon jazzing all over the place on that. Even George Harrison said he was taken aback by what John played, and thought it sounded like Django Reinhardt or something. Jazz, coming from John, the guitar basher, of all people. One highlight.

Dr. Robert: Not much to latch onto, but the Beach Boys-leaning vocal breaks are pretty neat. Some interesting guitar sounds and textures in the breaks, and during the fade...pretty unique sounds and phrases.

Till There Was You: Pleasant vocal, not much else, *but* George's guitar solo...I think the Beatles were trying to show off the fact that they could play the "songbook" standards too and weren't just a three-chord-rock flash in the pan. Diminished chords! Chromatics! Jazz phrasing! And if you watch that first Ed Sullivan broadcast when they do this tune, George actually tops himself by playing a flawless solo on electric rather than his classical acoustic from the record.

I agree with these, those are all highlights and good standalone songs and performances. But they didn't release the *best* version of Across The Universe, the best which I think is the most stripped down version that's out there, until years later. They badly mishandled that song, which is a great song.

My grandfather loved Honey Pie, so they must have pulled off the pastiche well. And I love Dr. Robert too and the slow-drawl vocal that Lennon was using at that time. It was a weird style of singing that seemed to disappear after that album.

The one that I tend to stick with is the version on Anthology 2 with what I think, from memory, might be tambouras on it. I prefer that over the Let it Be Naked version (which might even be the same take). You're right though, ATU was a casualty of Spector along with Long and Winding Road. In that respect, Macca was right.

hmmm they are ok..across the universe is amazing though :) and when i say ok i mean on beatles terms.

so why did they release let it be after abbey road?

i wish it was on the album ..-___- fuckin phil spector!...and did it chart well?

Because they had moved on to Abbey Road and pretty well knew it was going to be their last album, so they went all out (except maybe Maxwell's Silver Hammer LOL). Like I said, they gave the Get Back tapes another try in December to at least get the album out with the movie. I don't know who turned them over to Phil Spector (I'm guessing the label and not the Beatles themselves), but he got them. Let It Be hit #1 in the UK.

I can get through Doctor Robert because of the guitars and vocals. It's not great, but kind of disappointing on an album like Revolver. Honey Pie, it depends on my mood, but I usually won't listen to it. I do like your points, but they only add so much, really.

Charted #1 in: UK, US, Australia, Germany, Norway. That probably had to do with it being their last official release.

I don't know, I can't hate Maxwell's Silver Hammers (though I can't stand When I'm 64).

Go figure.

the song that makes me wonder why it was on the amazing revolver is "yellow submarine"  ???

phil spector f***ed up let it be :[...at least for taking off don't let me down!

I'm amazed 'Dig It' is mentioned only once on these pages.
Perhaps most people agree it's  not even worth to be called a song: it's a jam and it shows.

That's one of the reasons I prefer Let It Be ... Naked. Any album of the Get Back sessions  that omits 'Dig It' and 'Maggie Mae' to give space to 'Don't Let Me Down' gets my vote.

I totally agree with you :) ...phil spector was out of line for getting rid of dont let me down

Phil was the reason Let it Be came out, he had to piece together hours of song fragments just to have a bare song to overdub.

phil is the reason why "dont let me down" didn't make the cut and why the "long and winding road"  differs from it's original format :/

Well I like the Spector sound just fine...

Mee too :)..He's an evil genius..

Dig It has sentimental value because I can be hanging around with my mate and one of us goes 'Hey ....like a rolling stone' and then we end up just saying it all to each other. Because we're dorks  :lol


I am going on some kind of caffeinebased memory here, but I'da sworn that giving the Get Back tapes to Spector was either John or Georges idea? After all, they were working with Spector at the time.

Blame Allen Klein!

No he didn't.  Spector worked from the same cache of tapes that Glyn Johns did in preparing his mixes, the only difference is for some reason Glyn Johns decided to all but ignore both the rooftop concert and the Apple Studio Performance in preparing his mixes while Spector used these performances as the backbone of his mix.  Then came the overdubs...

One of my favourite Beatles tracks!  :rock

The tearing down the wall of sound book by Mick Brown said Spector had to spend hours going through the tapes of the Beatles jamming and rehearsing to piece together songs to overdub.

Another case of someone writing about The Beatles without doing their proper research I'm afraid.  Honestly out of all the books that have been written about The Beatles in the past forty years there are still probably only a very small handful (say between 10-20 books) that actually know the subject matter which they deal with.

Don't Let Me Down wasn't on the album because it had been released already nearly a year earlier. Get Back had as well but it had been a successful #1 A-side single that also figured very prominently in the film. Nevertheless Spector still re-mixed the song so it would sound different from the single version.

This is true, and it's important to remember just how much of a debacle the entire Get back-Let It Be project was for almost all involved. It strayed *so far* from the original concept, which apparently was Paul wishing to book a series of three "comeback" concerts in London and hiring a director (Michael Lindsey-Hogg got the gig) to film them for a television special.

It was full of debates, arguments, petty squabbles, and a very addicted Lennon, a very mad Harrison, an overbearing McCartney, and a passive Ringo who just went through the motions. All of the glossing over of what this period really was about is a bit odd but it does put more attention on the music, good or bad. Part of the reason why the rooftop concert came to be was that it was a compromise in order to get the band back together after the walk-outs. The compromise was apparently to scrap the television concerts idea and do the rooftop instead.

George Martin was there - notice he's in the film and more in the film outtakes. He didn't end up doing the final album mixing. They brought in Glyn Johns to mix, he did at least 2 acetate pressings of "Get Back" featuring "songs" like Teddy Boy, but Lennon for one was not happy.

Those Glyn John early mixes are the ones that formed some of the earliest Beatles bootlegs, and they "leaked" enough in the US that radio stations played them on the air, first in Buffalo, then most famously on WBCN in Boston - that 'BCN tape-sourced broadcast was the "source" for the first bootleg of the album and sessions. Rolling Stone magazine reviewed it!

The hilarious part - and there are sources but it's still in question - is that John Lennon himself was the source of this Glyn Johns acetate getting leaked, with some even suggesting (Lennon himself apparently one of them...) that he had traded the acetate for other recordings during a visit to the US. Lennon - the pioneering bootlegger. if this is urban legend or myth which has been debunked, please correct what I just wrote!

So eventually after George Martin, Glyn Johns, the original concept, the whole ball of wax, etc. got discarded and dumped, Phil Spector was brought in.

His role has been somewhat overstated, as he certainly did not wade through the tape library to cull the performances but rather used what had already been logged and edited by Martin and Johns as a template. Most of his work involved the sweetening and overdubbing of the orchestra and voices.

Read Emerick's book for an inside look at what a debacle that was. To summarize, Spector was acting like a spoiled kid, demanding things in a loud voice such as "I must have more strings!" and playing games with the engineer where one would turn down the volume and the other would immediately reach over and turn it up. Ringo was the only Beatle there, and he basically was there to mediate and help cool things down, and he had to pull Spector aside after things got too testy.

At that point, the Beatles didn't really care, they just wanted something to put out. Lennon is the hard one to read, because at the same time he'd say he didn't like the Glyn Johns mixes but he was glad to see them come out to kill the Beatles mythology. And on the rooftop he seems to be having a jolly old time rocking out in his fur coat and sneakers, but he's always said it was a miserable time and he was addicted in a bad way during the filming.

Let It Be was a mess, and Spector was a temperamental mess as he worked on it, at least according to those who were there. The credit he should get is that he managed to put something together for a release - exactly what he put together and how he did it is up for debate.

This is why I love this place, the truth comes out quickly.

I think that given the circumstances that were detailed by guitarfool, it's pretty amazing that "Let It Be" is as solid as it is.  It isn't a bad album but one that results from the fact that Paul McCartney was the only Beatle at the time that was truly invested in creating top notch material for the album.  As guitarfool noted both Harrison and Lennon had issues during this period and it wasn't that they weren't contributing decent songs to the project (Lennon: "Don't Let Me Down/Harrison: a myriad of tracks that were unfortunately passed over) but what actually ended up on the "Let It Be" album wasn't exactly the best work from either John or George.  When The Beatles decided to lay down their arms for at least a little bit in an effort to make "Abbey Road" is when you started to see top notch material again surface from Lennon and especially Harrison. 

All the decent songs of "Let it Be" came from Macca. The others just submitted junk.

"Across The Universe"? "For You Blue"?

Yeah, really, "Dig A Pony" was the only new song of Lennon's on Let It Be. But "Don't Let Me Down" was a contender at one point for Get Back.

"Across The Universe" really was never a contender for "Let It Be".  It was an afterthought addition by the The Beatles (not by Spector but The Beatles) to the track lineup once they discovered that a sequence featuring them rehearsing the song was included in the print of the film that they were provided of for their review by director Michael Lindsay-Hogg.  

"For You Blue" isn't necessarily a bad song but it's telling that the song was included as the b-side to "The Long & Winding Road" in the United States.  It's worthy of b-side status and would have been easily bumped from the lineup if the band had seriously considered recording any of the more other worthy contenders Harrison submitted to them in 1969.  In fact Harrison was so unsatisfied with the original 1969 version of the song that he went back a year later and redid his vocal entirely before it would be ready for release on "Let It Be".  Anyone who thinks that Harrison submitted junk during the "Let It Be" project fails to fully grasp the situation.

The central problem at this point, I think, was that Lennon did feel like he should have been forced to do anything -- that he had earned a little bit of freedom to do things his way in his time. Now this attitude isn't very helpful when you are in a band, but I guess that's why he was ultimately ambivalent at that time about whether or not he really wanted to be in a band. I think it was also hurting his ego that what was, really, once his band, was now Paul's band. Whereas once it was sort of taken for granted that while the partnership was Lennon and McCartney, it was Lennon who was pulling the most weight. It was typically his voice that was most pronounced on singles. Since Revolver though, things had gone the opposite way. Now Paul was writing the respected songs and coming up with concepts for albums that would be widely hailed as masterpieces. After Brian had died, while John was probably upset, he was also probably relieved that he wasn't beholden to anything anymore. But immediately Paul took over and, like Brian, started thinking about The Beatles in terms of "moves", what the next move would be, and so on. John probably thought, "Why do we have to do this now? Can't we just let things happen as they happen?" But Paul didn't think in those terms. And so John was once again beholden but probably found it easier just to fight back against Paul - mostly through inaction. "You're going to think about us in terms of the "next move" well, what are you going to do when I just do nothing? Kind of thwarts your big plans doesn't it?" To a certain degree you can understand both sides. Paul didn't want The Beatles slipping - he had some weird ability to see things in long terms and knew that they needed to keep striving for perfection whilst putting out something entirely new and unique amongst their catalogue. And Paul had the kind of clout at that point where he could throw his weight around a bit. Problem for John was he never had that opportunity because when he was the head of the band, he always had to answer to Brian, so in a way, John had missed his chance to be the real bandleader that Paul was clearly becoming. I can imagine that part of the allure of stepping out for John would have been being able to have a kind of control that he had never had. Whereas for Paul it meant losing control of the biggest rock band of all time.

I think that is part of it but a lot of what you just wrote is based on John's early seventies interviews where he tried to (at least in my opinion) rewrite history as to why The Beatles broke up.  Paul never wanted to take over a leadership role in the group.  In fact according to Doug Sulpy who has written chapter and verse on the breakup of the band, group leader was actually a position that Macca shied away from and might have even been forced into due to the ambivalence of Lennon. 

Guitarfool basically nailed what happened during the "Let It Be" project with the exception of his assertion that McCartney was overbearing.  The notion that McCartney was overbearing during this period comes once again from the complete ambivalence of the rest of the group towards the future prospects of the band.  As Ringo stated in the "Anthology" series they could still get the Beatle magic working once or twice a month which is pretty much the truth.  The rest of the time, I believe McCartney still saw The Beatles as a viable entity while the others (specifically Lennon and Harrison) didn't.  Therefore by 1969 McCartney wasn't so much overbearing but the only one that was truly invested in the future of the group.

Yeah, but they are official album tracks on "Let It Be" - and you stated that all decent songs on that album came from Macca. So...^^

"All I'm saying is LOOK lads -- the band!"

Whether or not Macca perceived it as leadership, he was definitely invested in what the band was supposed to be doing to the point where he was making or trying to make a lot of big decisions for them. Like I said, this isn't necessarily a bad thing but to be honest I think it's kind of revisionist history to suggest that he wasn't leading the band at that point. He's on film very clearly in that role.

I actually never stated that.  I was just pointing out the fact that ATU was never officially submitted for "Let It Be" until much after the fact.

Uh yeah, sorry, that was The Return of the Son of Mike's Beard..  :-\

True but from where I stand it was unfair of John Lennon to criticize Paul for taking on the leadership role in the group when it was neither a role that Paul sought after nor embraced.  In fact since we are referencing the film "Let It Be" there is another scene in the film where Paul is trying very hard to involve John in discussion of future plans for the group (particularly a potential return to live performances) and John offers no input whatsoever.  So in my opinion McCartney more than gave Lennon his fair share of chances to either reclaim the role of group leader or at least weigh in with his opinions as to the direction of the group and there is no evidence that John ever did.

Absolutely -- in fact, that's part of what I meant when I said that John was simply not interested in really "planning" at that time. He didn't care about "making the next move." In fact, he may have stayed in The Beatles for another few years if it had been just entirely laissez-faire, maybe put out an album when we have collected enough songs, etc. Of course, Paul (and there's nothing wrong with that) more than likely felt that this was no way of running a band like The Beatles.

A few points to consider in the conversation:

First, there is a connection between John's "leadership" role diminishing and his increased intake of LSD. "Hang On To Your Ego" - Lennon was tripping heavily in 1967, and one of the casualties was his ego and his outspoken nature. He has revealed this himself in interviews he gave later, and how he also eventually got his "ego" back after he stopped the daily/regular doses of LSD. But even observers noticed a change in his personality - while he was still the ad hoc leader of the group, he wasn't near as vocal and more often he'd be withdrawn and in a daze instead of what people knew him to be. As he got off the LSD, as he got burned by his trust in TM and the Maharishi, as he got more involved with Yoko, he also got more involved in heroin, and the drug seemed to fuel his anger and his outward hostility to a degree even beyond where it was before he began the heavy LSD routine. Look where his creativity was channeled in the larger part of 1969 - is there much output we could term "pretty" or positive about his music, or is it more often nasty, angry, harsh, or downright bizarre and experimental?

I feel it may have created a Catch-22 for McCartney, because when John was withdrawn and uninvolved in 1967, due to the LSD, McCartney had to step up to the plate and make something happen. Not that Lennon stepped aside by choice but rather by default. Then as Lennon was in the midst of his heroin addiction, he had so many other things going on, yet the "old Lennon" was coming back, the old angry Lennon, it couldn't have worked out.

Not that there were not certain moments of fun and "the good old days" of the Beatles, but the project was doomed by so many elements from the start.

The other fascinating angle for me was one I only heard about in recent years, and that was the role of George Harrison. He had made a trip to the USA in 1968, and for all intents and purposes he was greeted and treated as rock royalty. He held court with some of the best established and hippest breakout artists, he had requests to produce or work with various outside artists, in short he was becoming "GEORGE HARRISON" as much as "BEATLE George". His ego and his confidence got a major boost from being with those outsiders, as most of his professional world was insulated within the Beatles and deferring, naturally, to John and Paul within that structure.

It had to have been a rush, and I think that time spent away from the Beatles in '68 was what fueled George's intense run of creativity in 1969. His songwriting was at its peak, and I say that objectively when you tally up what he did in that year. Even songs he brought into the Get Back-Let It Be project were tried but dismissed by The Beatles but later turned up on All Things Must Pass, to great critical acclaim. George Is Free!, they heralded in the praise of the album, yet he had a pocketful of those songs ready in January 1969 and nothing happened. I have one recording of the sessions where George starts talking about taking all his songs and putting them out as a solo album, remember this is Jan. 1969 and he already felt like saying "f*ck it" and doing his own thing.

Imagine coming back from The States where you were welcomed as rock's elite, and your musical input was welcomed and requested, then you return to the Beatles where you're given the "#3" badge, sitting across from Paul who's telling you what he'd like on a certain track as John sits lost with Yoko and Ringo sits and waits. And you're all in a former aircraft hangar pretending you're working in a studio with camera crews milling about...George was mad for a reason, and ultimately with All Things Must Pass, a good portion written for and immediately after Get Back, he was vindicated. He had good songs.

Harrison basically says as much with his famous "Winter Of Discontent" statement in the "Anthology" series although given his humble nature he doesn't mention how handsomely he was treated in the United States by his fellow artists.  Instead he words it a bit differently mentioning that he had a fabulous time working with Bob Dylan and The Band in Woodstock and producing records for Jackie Lomax and then all of the sudden found himself in this aforementioned "Winter Of Discontent" which he termed as being "very unhappy and unhealthy".  Also much to Harrison's credit according to Sulpy before he got entirely disenchanted with the project as a whole, he did try to mention to the other members of the group that they should try to interject a little bit of the atmosphere and attitude he saw from The Band while he was visiting the USA.  This obviously never happened.

I think "The Word" is the absolute worst Beatles song. Stupid lyrics, boring melody, only Harrison's guitar (I assume) and the keyboard save this track from being total garbage.

It can be amazing to read how many artists were moved to change what they were doing after experiencing The Band's vibe in the late 60's, whether through the music or through direct contact. I think it was the kind of group scenario many artists wished they had, the more pure and simple way of moving into a house and making music then recording it in that same house, and the music being less flashy, less of a highlight on individual members and blazing solos, and more of a cooperative experience.

Clapton changed his entire outlook on music, life, and the guitar after getting immersed in The Band, and he was perhaps the hottest musician in England in 1968...eventually he chucked it all, got rid of the albatross which was Cream, and became basically a touring sideman for Delaney And Bonnie, as did George Harrison, remember. I think that was both his and George's closest substitute for that image of The Band being a bunch of down-home, music-loving guys who would hang out and make real music on their own terms.

Clapton, let's be honest, couldn't escape the "God" label nor could he live up to it, and he was surrounded by a drummer who favored 30 minute drum solos and a bassist with an ego to match the volume of his bass solos. George,  John+Paul - nothing more needs to be said! Then they see and hear The Band, a true *group* and not soloists, and it was very appealing.

Delaney and Bonnie probably thought they'd won the f***ing lottery when Clapton and Harrison wanted to join them. ;D

It's the lynchpin though for the entire "Rubber Soul" album which deals with a great deal of the fallacies and misconceptions of love.  Even though there is no indication that RS is a concept record a great of the record deals with one singular topic and it's "The Word" which ties all this together.  Whether you ascribe the word as referencing spiritual love or love on a more human level it's clearly the concept that most of the "Rubber Soul" characters have trouble grasping.

I just read through everybody's least favorites from this thread.  I was a huge fan when I was younger, but my least favorite (unless I"m forgetting one not mentioned on the thread already)  would be

"Within You Without You" - ALWAYs hated this song.  Just can't get into it.  I like Sitar.  I don't like Sitar when it just sounds like a beehive. 
"Doctor Robert" - just kind of boring.  Never got into it. 
"Honey Don't" - I can barely remember this song it's so bad.  That's rare with the Beatles.
"If You've got Troubles" - Boring song.
"Revolution #9" - I understand the significance of it but after you've heard it a few times there's no reason to listen to it again.
"Why Don't We Do It In the Road" - funny the first few times, then kind of half-assed. 
"Boys" - I don't even remember. 



Ones people mentioned that I love

"Maxwell's Silver Hammer" - always liked this. 
"Mr. moonlight" is fucking awesome, I can't believe some dont' like this.  John Lennon sounds like a Rock & Roll Jesus Christ with his vocal on this.  I used to just rewind it and listen to the intro over and over again to learn what real singing sounds like.
"I'm Down" - I dig it.  Can't help it.
"Savoy Truffle" - the title is awesome, the guitar is great, the whole song is really cool.
"bungalow Bill" - I never get tired of.  Don't know why, I guess I'm just a big fan.
"Glass Onion" - very interesting song, lots of nice sounds and textures.
"Honey Pie" - I always liked when Paul was just screwing around.  Fun stuff.
"Yellow Submarine" - what? This is classic!
"Octopus's Garden" - great song.  I like everything about it.
"Your Mother Should Know" - even the video is great.  Great singing by the Beatles, too.
"Don't Pass Me By" - fine by me, If just for the drums. 
"She's a Woman" - Nice rocker.  I like it.
For You Blue
Piggies


As for John's negative side on "Beatles for Sale", I really, really liked that album when I first bought it as a teenager.  I read once a writer's opinion that John went through a phase for a year or two, where he was kind of depressed about his career... the writer said it stemmed from an incident where a reported referred to John as "The Fat Beatle"... he wrote a bunch of downer songs and lost weight, consistantly, for the rest of his life.  Personally I don't think that had much to do with it, but he did go through a pretty dark period there for a little while early in their career.  Beatles for Sale is a fantastic album, though. 

No Reply, I'm a Loser, Baby's in Black, Rock and Roll Music, I'll Follow the Sun, Mr. Moonlight, Kansas City, Eight Days a Week, Words of Love, Every Little Thing, and I Don't Want To Spoil The Party are all fantastic. 

I'm not as big of a fan as "Everybody's trying to be my baby", "Honey Don't", and "What You're Doing".   I'd say the best song on the album is "Every Little Thing".  The music is just beautiful, it has that 'young' and excited sound that the Beatles not only personified but remind me of that period of my life when I was young and excited.  Just the right amount of melancholy sprinkled over it to make it great. 


This is also an album chock full of songs that you rarely hear on the radio, or at the mall, or whatever.  The only time you're going to hear these songs is if you play them on purpose, so to me they all stand pretty strong because they haven't been worn out yet. 

As for Let It Be, I like the album.  I think Spector gets a bad rap.  Face it, this was an album the Beatles were unable to salvage themselves.  The "Let It Be Naked" album is INFERIOR in my opinion.  I know that's not a popular opinion. 

The Spector album version of Let It Be (the record) complete with the reverb on ringo's drums, and the blistering Guitar Solo by George is one of the best tracks the Beatles ever released.  It's much better than the single, in my opinion. 

I can understand the Beatles may not have been happy with what was released, but it's hard to blame Spector, the record company knew exactly what they were getting when they brought in Spector.  Of course he was going to pour strings and reverb and whatever all over everything.  Of course he was going to be hard to work with, etc.  This was not the first time he did any of that, he was a known commodity when they hired him.... and he gave them a finished, *hit* album that sold well (even if not as well as the stuff the Beatles had released previously, it still sold).

It is what it is, he had a huge mess to work with and did what he was asked to do: he made an album out of it. 

In Lennon's famous Playboy interview he talks about how embarassed he was by that song. 

You only need to play Let It Be back-to-back with Abbey Road to see what a difference certain elements could make on an album. Considering they were both recorded the same year, why was one such a glorious success, one of the most-celebrated and beloved albums of the 60's, while the other is best remembered for a few good singles and for being a swansong?

I said it in my earlier post, I think Spector gets credit for creating a viable album from the Get Back tapes, but beyond that it's up for debate and always will be. And that's not to say "Let It Be...Naked" was the elixir, in fact I bought that album and was more than underwhelmed by what I heard. There was no spark, no magic.

It reinforced the view even more that the root problems of Let It Be went far beyond the mixes and arrangements. The effort just wasn't there.

What is interesting is that given that 95% of the "Abbey Road" tracks were first rehearsed as potential candidates for the aborted live performance, it could be said that certainly at the time the "Abbey Road" material was viewed as the weaker lot of songs when compared with the tracks on "Let It Be".  Now granted as I understand it a great deal of what would become "Abbey Road" was still unfinished during the recording of "Let It Be" but nevertheless The Beatles chose to focus on the "Let It Be" material in January 1969 instead of say trying to further develop the "Abbey Road" tracks.  

As for the "Let It Be"/"Let It Be Naked" debate: I agree with Ron, "Let It Be" is the better record although by no means should that be considered a ringing endorsement on my behalf.  Personally I wished they would have gone with John Lennon's suggestion and released the "Get Back" record because it would have shown The Beatles for what they were at that point in their careers and effectively broken the myth.  

In the end it should be said neither "Let It Be" nor it's naked counterpart present an accurate portrayal of the music recorded during the sessions as they have both been sanitized in one form or another.  To get the true experience as to what The Beatles were attempting to do during the "Let It Be" sessions one would actually have to look elsewhere.

I actually prefer LIB...N. The running order makes a lot more sense and I enjoy the alternate takes and dressed down production more than Spector's version. It feels like a Beatles album.

I go back to several accounts of those around the band saying they approached Abbey Road as the "grand finale" of sorts, the one they wanted to bid farewell with and make it a grand exit. You can hear this in the *performances*, and that's where I'm hearing the contrast between Abbey Road and Let It Be. Everyone knew what the Beatles could do, what potential there was when these guys got down to business. Put the right scenario together, put them in the right atmosphere, and the magic would come out, maybe not as much as in earlier years but it could still be found.

Look at "Ballad Of John And Yoko"...is it a great piece of songwriting? Perhaps not, it's an old-time rocker with John's life in the lyrics. But damn, doesn't that record *sound* and *feel* good when you hear it? It's only John and Paul, strip away all the personal and business issues of 1969, they're playing music together in the studio as if they were 16 playing music in a living room in Liverpool. It's that magic, that chemistry, and it comes out in the performance.

I think they pulled it together for Abbey Road, they got back into the groove again, they brought back Geoff Emerick and George Martin for full participation as they had done in the awesome years of 66-67, they wanted to do it the way it needed to be done. Thus, Abbey Road is full of life.

The times I do see that Beatle magic during Let It Be was on the rooftop - they're playing as a band, and some parts they appear to be having fun, even though George looks bored a lot of the time. This is why I think that rooftop concert has become so iconic - as dreary as they looked and played inside the ol' airplane hangar studio, they did come to life on that roof and played some good rock and roll. If the music they played on the roof had not been good, the concert would not survive as an iconic moment in rock.

Again, are the Abbey Road songs or song fragments stellar examples of the Beatles' songwriting prowess? Some perhaps, some perhaps not. But Abbey Road has a certain sparkle to it that even Spector and his magic dust couldn't capture no matter how much "work" he did with the Get Back tapes, because the band was not into the project as much as on Abbey Road. Even if the participation was knowingly going out with a bang by making a great record.

Yes it was me and I admit I'd overlooked Across The Universe when making that post. However I still stand by my statement that everything else John and George put forward for the album blows.

I do like I Me Mine, but it's not like I think it's anything more than a sketch put on the record for a spurious reason.

You should reconsider that statement, at least where George is concerned. This is a partial list of songs George put forward and recorded/rehearsed with the band during the Let It Be sessions:

Something
All Things Must Pass
Isn't It A Pity
Old Brown Shoe
I Me Mine
For You Blue
Hear Me Lord
Let It Down

That's a partial list, not including covers of things he heard when hanging out with Dylan and The Band, songs he'd do with Jackie Lomax, and other works-in-progress.

Note that on this partial list, you have one smash hit Beatles single A-side, one Beatles B-side, one solo hit single, 2 Beatles album cuts, one title track of a solo triple album, and two solo album cuts.

Not a bad haul for a group of songs that "blows". :-D

I have to clarify something I wrote about Abbey Road - Again with anything Beatles, it can be frustrating to deal with several different accounts of the same story. I realized there are as many accounts of people working on Abbey Road who say there was no indication it was to be the "last" Beatle album, rather it was just the next project in line to be recorded. What I suggested was based on what I heard, that there was a deliberate effort to do a better job knowing it was all coming to an end. Then there are observers who say certain members were not all that enthusiastic about the studio work unless it was on their own composition.

I guess we have to weigh it all and form our own opinions of what happened. It reminds me of those Anthology scenes where the three Beatles are reciting different versions of the same story.

I think John was the only one who knew it was to be the last album.

From the things I have seen from that time, it seemed as if no one was entirely sure whether the break was permanent or temporary even throughout 1970. I think Paul's lawsuit against the other three in December 1970 really put the nail in the coffin. It certainly made the possibility of all four playing together quite dim for a few years. John, George, and Ringo though working together a fair amount in the years just after the breakup.

To tell you the truth there are several indications that "Let It Be" was to be the last album.  This is never really expounded upon but if you look at the evidence and the offhand remarks made there was a period of time towards the end of the "Let It Be" project and the month of February, 1969 where it looked as if there wouldn't have been an "Abbey Road" project.  

First off there is a comment by George Harrison in the "Anthology" that he was coaxed back into the group (after quitting during the Twickenham rehearsals) on the premise of the band getting back together and making things tidy.  In fact as much has been made about The Beatles laying down their arms in order to make "Abbey Road", this process actually began at the start of the Apple Studio sessions for "Let It Be" as the tension and backbiting which defined the Twickenham rehearsals were all but absent at Apple.  In fact more times than not during the Apple sessions, The Beatles could be seen enthusiastically working towards their goal of somehow bringing the project to completion and also for the most part enjoying one another's company.

There is however no indication that any other recording was planned at this point as engineer Glyn Johns was about to depart for the United States for his honeymoon and Ringo Starr was due to begin filming "The Magic Christian".  However sometime between the end of the "Let It Be" project and the beginning of the "Abbey Road" sessions something that is rarely spoken about happened.  The Beatles realized that one of the songs they had worked hard about bringing to completion during the final days of January ("I Want You (She's So Heavy)") still lay unfinished.  At this point it is believed it was suggested to them that they should reconvene to record this track in order to fill out the "Let It Be" album, not to start a new recording project like most assume.  For this reason session time was booked not at EMI Studios but at Apple Studios in late February to record this track.  Billy Preston was present and it is believed that along with beginning to record "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" the band also used the opportunity to overdub additional vocals onto "Don't Let Me Down".  Very little has apparently survived the years from this solitary Apple Studios session from February as Apple was in the process of testing out a new mixer at the time and ostensibly for this reason most of this session wasn't preserved on multi-track tape.

The Beatles would then move over to Trident Studios where they would continue recording "I Want You (She's So Heavy)" for the remainder of the month.  Then all of the sudden nothing until April.  Paul McCartney got married, John married Yoko and they had their first of a series of bed-ins and George recorded a few demos at Abbey Road (perhaps in preparation for that solo album he was thinking of).  Then all of the sudden in April, a flurry of activity resumes now at EMI studios which by the end of the summer would result in the handsome LP "Abbey Road".

As George Harrison mentioned in the "Anthology": "It was then decided we should do one better album".  There is however the distinct possibility that this decision wasn't made until two months after the "Let It Be" project ended as there are indications that in the weeks after the conclusion of the January sessions, The Beatles were more interested in finishing up an LP rather than beginning a new one.

To JohnMill, I just wanted to add a few things to consider: You're talking about what amounted to a period of four days in Feb. 1969, from the 22nd to the 25th. The delay from the last proper session on Jan. 31 was from Glyn Johns as you mentioned, as well as Billy Preston who I guess they still considered an active participant. But the key "missing person" would be George Harrison who was out of action during these weeks in February because he had surgery to remove his tonsils.

So yes, when they got back together on the 22nd, they recorded I Want You on Feb. 22nd and that was it, nothing else was recorded. Those other days were for mixing and editing, then George came into the studio by himself on Feb 25th to record demos of three originals which had been rehearsed during the Get Back sessions.

But - One of the key dates would be in early March when Paul and John called Glyn Johns and asked him to compile, edit, and start mixing an album from all of the tapes they had recorded in January. At this point, it feels like John and Paul at least had put an official "stop" to the work on that proposed album and had given Glyn Johns the power to put it together. Notice they didn't record anything else until mid-April, when Geoff Emerick was again asked to engineer what became "Ballad Of J&Y' and two days later, they started work on two of the songs Harrison had demo'ed back on Feb. 25th.

This work was done a month after Johns had worked on editing and mixing the "Get Back" tapes. Glyn Johns himself would not engineer another recording until early May. Johns later prepared the master for the "Get Back" album with George Harrison and George Martin present on May 28th.

It feels like John and Paul had ended the Get Back project when they hired Glyn Johns to mix in early March. All that was left was the final touches, as soon as Johns had something solid to hand in. I don't think anything that wasn't on Glyn Johns' preliminary or working tracklists would have been considered a part of Get Back. "I Want You" was merely on the shelf, as were "Something" and "Old Brown Shoe".

I've read a few times that "I Want You" was originally intended for "Let It Be" not "Abbey Road".  Now what could have possibly happened was that after the February sessions, The Beatles realized that "I Want You" was for one reason or another not going to be able to make the cut for "Let It Be" but the fact that they reconvened at Apple Studios, brought along Billy Preston and the same crew they had worked with in January (including photographer Ethan Russell) tells me that initially "I Want You" was attached to the "Let It Be" project.  It just didn't work out that way in the end.

Agreed, when Ringo pleads "Rock on, anybody" you know it's a dud!

Are you Jann Werner by any chance?

Imagine if they ended it with their last album being abbey road/ Let it be together for an ultimate ending.
1. Come Together
2. Something
3. Oh! Darling
4. Across the Universe
5. Here Come the Sun
6. Because
7. Let it Be
8. Sun King
9. She Came in Through the Bathroom Window
10. Don't Let Me Down
11. Get Back
12. The Long and Winding Road
13. The End

Sorry newguy, but your alternate track list takes the sequential strengths of both respective albums and reduces them to zero. (Though Oh! Darling to Across the Universe is an interesting transition).

Taking away one of the best things they ever did - the B-side of Abbey Road - would not be the ultimate ending.

When I first got into all this music I was in high school, and I can tell you guys that although 'let it be" is pretty weak, I thought it was super cool as a teenager.  (this was in the 90's).  I liked how different it was from all their other albums, it just had a different sound and was the ultimate shaggy haired drug addled Beatles record.  My friends and I would listen to it all the time, here we were teenagers who actually enjoyed "dig a pony" and things.  A lot of it was reverence for John Lennon I believe, but don't let your familiarity with the music jade you: even on an album that weak, the Beatles still had the magic. 

but, man, it's Far Out.... man!

You know, it's too bad The Beatles didn't record an album of all George songs, instead of Let It Be.......
This would have been cool...

Long Long Long (uneventful)
For You Blue (stupid blues song anyone could have written)
Blue Jay Way (droning, uninspired psychedelic arrangement)
When I Get Home (ugh)

You had me til you said blue jay way & when i get home  :(

Long Long Long is great. and you're mad.

BLASPHEMY!

Run For Your Life (mainly for those misogynist lyrics)

Your Mother Should Know
Revolution #9
Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da
Maxwell's Sivler Hammer
Yellow Submarine
Something
Within You Without You

Some of these have a few charms, but overall I'm not a fan.

What Goes On...complete ham jelly

something? really?

I think the first side of Abbey Road is pretty bad compared to most Beatles stuff to be honest. Some people love it, but the second side is much stronger IMO. But that's just me.

that's a suprise lol..it's hard to pick a side lol..the first side has come together,something & oh darling but the 2nd side has here comes the sun,because,sun kind & she came in through the bathroom window...it's hurtful to choose a side lol

"Something" is great, if only for Paul's incredible Bassline.  One of the best he ever did!

I think Paul passive agressively played incredible basslines on anything successful the other guys wrote.  I mean he's just on another planet on that song, the bassline is as beautiful as the lyrics are. 

Worst Beatles 'cover' song = A Taste Of Honey
Worst Beatles 'hit' song = Eight Days A Week
Worst Beatles song overall = Michelle

I take it that you don't care much for Blues, Country & Western, Folk, Garage Rock etc. if that's your criteria?

Anyone who said 'You Know My Name (Look Up The Number)' is str8 crazy.

"Good evening, and welcome to Slaggers...'

OMG, how on earth did I miss this...!?

Worst Beatles songs:
- Mr. Moonlight (except for the very beginning)
- Things We Said Today (man, how boring...)
- Long, Long, Long
- the re-make of "That Means A Lot"
- Lady Madonna (mainly because...it's very pointless.)
- Get Back (I hate that "gallop" rhythm. Also, you can actually HEAR Macca's beard in it...his voice sounds weird. Much prefer the earlier more rockin' takes)

BTW, cablegeddon -- You knocked "Sun King" because it rips off Fleetwood Mac. (I can't stand Fleetwood Mac, so you gotta clue me in here...what was the ripoff?) You said "that's below them." Ummmmm...no, not really -- "Sun King" is a John Lennon song...and Lennon was notorious for ripping stuff off:
- first line of "Run For Your Life" --> stolen "Baby, Let's Play House"
- "Happy Xmas" --> "Stewball"
- "Remember" --> steals lyrics from "Bring It On Home To Me"
- "Remember" --> steals from the extended fadeout of "Something" (yet to be released)
- "Come Together" --> steals from "You Can't Catch Me"

BTW, on the SAME ALBUM, the "Golden Slumbers" lyrics are cribbed from a completely different, much older song called "Golden Slumbers" for which Macca had the sheet music. Problem: he couldn't read music (and I think to this day he doesn't know how to read music -- when he writes arrangements for other musicians, he plays 'em into a computer via MIDI), so he made up his own. So on the same side of the same album, two different Beatles apparently stoop to stealing. :)

And to add more discredit to the "that's below them" thought:

George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" --> intended to be a ripoff of "Oh Happy Day" --> judge sez no, it was a ripoff of "He's So Fine"

And something off of one of Ringo's solo albums from the last several years (one of the ones produced by Mark Hudson) takes lyrics directly from "Alley Oop."

Listen back to back......Fleetwood Mac - Albatross -> Sun King. Help and a couple of other Lennons songs are up there as my favorite Beatles songs so I really hope Lennon did more that just steal throughout his career. It would kill me if I found out that he's just a theif  :'(

This sounds blasphemous, but I still have a hard time getting into the Beatles British albums pre-Pepper. Best example: Rubber Soul. Having heard this album since I was in grade school with "I've Just Seen a Face" kicking it off, it just feels totally wrong to open with "Drive My Car", which is one of my least favorite Beatles songs, anyway. I just hate Macca's vocal tone on it, and the lyrics. "What Goes On?" is just a bad attempt at writing a Carl Perkins style number. The flow of the US RS vs the UK is completely different. And I think Capitol improved the early albums by including the hit singles, which were always strong. When I wanna hear the Fab Four at their best, I always reach for Meet the Beatles, Beatles '65, Beatles VI, or Rubber Soul.

The Beatles hold such a place in my heart I generally enjoy almost every song.  Any song you guys mentioned I thought "Oh hell no!". 

Roughly 25% of the White Album.

this saddens me deeply :/

Mr. Moonlight, Within You, When I'm 64, Blue Jay Way, Bungalow Bill, Honey Pie, Revolution 9, Good Night, What's The New Mary Jane, You Know My Name. As a group I think only these ten are downright bad. Solo it's another story.

I think the root of the problem here is that you don't like the beatles.

Hilarious.

List of crappy Beatles song off the top of my head (66-onwards)

Michelle
Run for Your Life
Dr Robert
Yellow Submarine (fun for kids i guess)

Sgt Pepper:
everything Paul McCartney wrote apart from title track&reprise (lots of random filler and granny tunes, not good)
Good Morning Good Morning (weak lennon song)
How can Sgt Pepper have so much praise with so many random Mccartney songs is beyond me, dandy cover I guess..

Your Mother Should Know
Baby you're A rich Man

White album:
littered with filler and trash, but one that is very popular is Obladi Oblada, worst song of their career. wtf McCartney.
Half the album is shite, the rest is very good!

Maxwell
Mean mr mustard
polythene pam
bedroom window
golden slumbers

Most of Let It Be is sub-par, some is ruined by Spector.
Some great songs on that too though!

I think McCartney said something to this effect once but I'll reiterate that it took real balls to write a song inspired by French chanson-style at the height of the British Invasion. It's an interesting foray into another cultural style but it means nothing if one isn't aware of that style.


Yeah, this is average and it's average-ness is made worse because it is given last track authority. Compared to Tomorrow Never Knows, Day in the Life and The End, this doesn't measure up.


I love Dr. Robert. Great counter-culture song with John's vocals at their draggy best.


I don't understand the criticism this song gets. To me it fits in rather nicely with the Revolver aesthetic - lots of interesting experimentation, big poppy chorus, etc. There's a reason why it was another #1 hit single for The Beatles.


I think Getting Better is one of the best things McCartney ever did, personally. And I love how when McCartney does "When I'm 64", it's a granny tune but when Dylan did John Wesley Harding or when The Band did their self-titled album, it was roots music. When I'm 64 (and other Macca songs like it) explored English roots in a way that very few other British artists were doing (aside, particularly, from Ray Davies). McCartney shouldn't be criticitized because he decided to stop appropriating other cultural roots music (American blues) for a while in order to explore his own roots.


What???? This is one of the finest pieces of psychedelia from the 60s.


A good Caribbean-inspired number. What's the problem with it?


To me those songs are part of a suite that may very well be the best thing The Beatles ever did. To take out the individual parts and criticize them is more than unfair, as far as I'm concerned.

All I saw was he started his post with "Nothing special about these songs: Eight Days a Week" and I didn't even read the rest of them. 


How in the hell can you not see anyting special in Eight Days a Week?

Here, I'll mention just 1.  The song fades in.  How many songs do that? 

So, what that means is: the song is special before it even BEGINS.  It's like they're in another room somewhere being cool, and you just get to walk in on it or something.  There, that covers the first 5 seconds of the song, i'm sure somebody else can cover the rest of it :)

I can't think of any Beatles song I would classify as "worst". I think my least favorites are Long Long Long and Savoy Truffle. Everything else is great for me.

Unfortunately, that's the ONLY thing special about 'Eight Days A Week'.
When you get past the fade-in it's just a lazy blues shuffle with oddly
uninspired and formulaic lyrics for the Lennon/McCartney team. The
whole thing just plods along, waiting for those hand claps. The Rolling
Stones brazenly appropriated the hook for 'I'm Free' from this Beatles
hit...but at least they added a tasty guitar solo and quirky falsetto
backing vocals to off-set the sad mediocrity that is 'Eight Days A Week'.

It isn't a blues shuffle. Though it does have bluesy phrasing. That's like calling Wake Up Little Susie blues.

Blasphemy.  You don't find even the harmony to be great?  It's some of the best they ever did! 

Why am I arguing with somebody who obviously doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground?

They've done much better. On EDAW it's almost bubblegum.

It is if you're the bass player...

I don't know why you brought up Wake up little Susie but it's a great comparison. Both immensely catchy and well produced, the difference being that in terms of melodies and hooks there's more of them in Eight days a week. Even when Beatles were just writing cynical hit songs they added so much to the songs that they were in a league of their own IMO.

Not saying one of the songs is better than the other btw.

And that is a bad thing?

Paul had a tendency to rely on stock walking basslines at times.

It was to me in 1965. EDAW was the first Beatles single my little sister (four years younger) bought.
This fact actually led to my changing my allegiance to The Rolling Stones (and The Yardbirds) and
getting off the Beatle reservation for awhile.

That's a shame. What gets classified as "bubblegum pop" was ultimately some of the best music from the 60s. It's kind of cool how there is a bit of a revival going on for that sort of stuff right now (see The Explorers Club, for instance).

Eight Days A Week sounds a little like a Beach Boys song on Anthology as does Got To Get You Into My Life. It's so strange to see people here who don't like sixties music.

I'd like to hear a 1965 cover of EDAW by The Beach Boys with a Steve Douglas sax solo...that would really be something.
Who here doesn't like sixties music, or bubblegum for that matter? I'll bet that I have more Cowsills records than you.

Agreed - 60's bubblegum is the best, like 90% of girl group songs, one hit wonders, and all these little weird pop songs on Nuggets comps and things. 60's trashy pop is the best pop.

.

.

You can guess, but you'll never know.

 :lol

Revolution 9 hands down!  :bow

I haven't listened to that song in years, because I can't!

Why?
Because I've only listened to that song around 3 times, and each time I did listen to it, something really bad happened to me shortly after.

It's cursed. CURSED I TELL YOU!!!  :old :angry :lol



The Runner-Ups are: Wild Honey Pie, Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da, Michelle (dodges bricks), What Goes On and Yellow Submarine (dodges bricks again).

Got To Get You Into my Life, are Doctor Robert are both pretty awful, stiff-ass, sexless pieces of garbage that pale in comparison to even the worst Kinks, or Who, or Beach Boys tracks....

In my eyes, you couldn't be more wrong about this one. I love it.

I don't think they ever really made a bad song. I mean there a few I don't like, but none I would call technically bad. "Revolution 9," however, is hot, pretentious garbage.

‍

Love Me Do
Do You Want To Know A Secret
I'll Cry Instead
When I Get Home
Mr. Moonlight
Yes It Is
Run For Your Life
Bungalow Bill
Piggies
Dig A Pony
Maggie Mae

all their other stuff (not including Anthology nonsense) is pretty good.

‍

I dig the horns a lot, but otherwise, I can't stand it.... Well, I mean I can't really say that I can't stand ANY Beatles song, but if I wanted to nit pick....

Which Beatles songs are your least favourite?

Wow, man, I think that is one of the most passionate lead vocals Lennon ever did. A true soaring statement of pride and an excellent predecessor to the ferocious I Want You (She's So Heavy).

Most of their material that I dislike is situated in the first Beatles "era" - filler such as Thank You Girl, Ask Me Why, A Taste of Honey, Mr. Moonlight, When I Get Home, Tell Me What You See, You Like Me Too Much and What Goes On.

As opposed to many fans, I dig George's Indian stuff and lately, 'Revolution 9' started to make more sense to me, especially in the context of its album. It is an interesting and curious chapter in the Beatles' history.

That's nice, but I think the lyrics are stupid and they had already done what they were trying to here better with This Boy.
Passionate vocals do not always turn something into a great song.
 While I'll acknowledge that Mr. Moonlight is another example of Lennon's  passionate vocals, that doesn't mean I like it more than the other  songs I put on my Beatles worst of list.

Bluejay way

‍

What's so bad about Love Me Do? For their first single it's quite good, and it has a memorable harmonica riff!

There is no such thing as a bad Beatles song.  Not every song is great of course but I couldn't name you one Beatles song I didn't like.

This. For me, I guess most of their really early stuff from Please Please Me for instance isn't as great as their later stuff, but even those songs are pretty darn good.

I just thought that Revolution #9 was just trippy and weird when I first listened to it, but now I think it's at least a unique experiment.

I don't really like yellow submarine  :-\

Same. It's Ringo's most overrated song!
The movie I should give another chance, I watched it when I was younger and I hated it, not realizing that it was psychedelic

I tried watchin Hard Day's Night when I was younger too and didn't get it.  Then last year I watched Herman Hermit's Mrs. Brown You've Got a Lovely Daughter movie and was bored out of my mind  :lol (as much as I love Peter Noone).  I guess the only movies like that I will get are the beach movies except Girls On the Beach was horrible (excluding the BBs and Leslie Gore)  :-\

I found A Hard Day's Night a bit boring, it's another film I should give another chance.
Help! is by far the best Beatles film, if you haven't seen it you should give it a chance. Magical Mystery Tour isn't too bad, but it hasn't aged well at all. And I can't judge for Let It Be as you can't watch it anywhere  :-\

Yea I'll give it another try, since I'm older now I might be able to understand it.  unfortunately that was the first and last Beatles film I ever saw, right now I'm more of a beach movie person  :)

My take:

A Hard Day's Night is great fun full of witty humor... but the editing/pacing is definitely slow by today's standards.

Help! is fun. Has it's moments. But on the whole I thought it was less artful/witty than it's predecessor.

Magical Mystery Tour is strange, witty, exciting, at times boring - Flying, I am looking at you, and full of interesting little bits and characters.

Yellow Submarine is a classic. Perfect - perfect - perfect.

Let It Be (I have seen it) is dreary. Very hard to sit through if you aren't a beatle freak like I was.

"Beatles For Sale" is really a quite shockingly crappy album overall. It boasts a few of their all-time best songs but too much goofy stuff and lame covers in-between, And I'm a huge early Beatles lover!

People always say that where The Beatles have the Beach Boys trumped is in their early days where it was a bunch of junk until Pet Sounds with The Boys and classic after classic with The Beatles..... "For Sale" is easily miles worse than any early Beach Boys album.

Everything that is except Party!

Agree with this. BFS has about 3-4 good songs and the rest are throwaways. Maybe they knew that and that's why they called it Beatles For Sale, it was just an album they cranked out cuz the record company wanted more sales.

Beatles for Sale isn't important because of what it is, rather for the direction it was pointing in. If you listen to the production, it's is VERY different from previous Beatles albums. The sound is warmer and far more intimate. That is (to me) why it is an important album.

Very good point!

I'm horrible on a thread like this, I'm an old-school Beatles fan and can honestly say I like almost all of their songs.  The only few I don't listen to are the ones that to me are a little out there, like "Within You, Without You" I've probably only heard 5 times in my life. 

"Beatles For Sale" is great.  When I was in high school, I finally discovered the Beatles, and I didn't have a lot of money so I would buy a new cd every few weeks.  I wasn't familiar with all their stuff, only a few of the singles I'd heard since I was a kid... so I can distinctly remember buying "Beatles For Sale" and just loving it!  What's not to love?  An entire album of songs I hadn't heard before. 

I may be biased, though... I was fortunate enough to buy that record, and all the Beatles records, at a point in my life where I had good friends, was in love, enjoying life, having a great time each and every day... so the music has a lot of great good memories for me. 

So a few songs mentioned above:

Love Me Do - I guess maybe some don't like it because of Paul's quivering vocal?  It's such a standard, I don't know why anybody wouldn't enjoy it.  Please Please Me is light years better but still: it's their first song!  How can you not like that?

Do You Want To Know A Secret - great song.  Always liked it.

When I Get Home - I'd halfheartedly agree, it's not a great song but I like the melody. 

Mr. Moonlight - a particular favorite of my friends and I when we first heard it.  We thought it was awesome, what an intro.

Yes It Is - I absolutely love this style of song that they would do, so creative imho.  Beautiful!

Run For Your Life - not a huge fan of this one, but again I won't skip it if I heard it on the radio. That's the End A.  Little Girl.

Bungalow Bill - It's the fucking white album, of course it's weird.  Hey Oh!

Piggies - great song.  One of my favorites on the white album.  Plus it's a George song, you can't dismiss any of the George songs because there's so few of them, and we've already dismissed Within You Without You, and the Inner Light.

Dig A Pony - I actually liked this song, I know there's nothing to it, but the stupidity of it I really enjoyed.  It's just so fucking stupid, and they were the biggest thing ever, and this is what they choose to do... and it was STILL successful.  I just like the whole "I'll do whatever I want" nature of it

Maggie Mae - Not a huge fan.

You know the little sample that repeats of the british guy going "Numba Nine..  Numba Nine.  "

So when I was a teenager, I worked at a grocery store.  So my friends and I work the front line, and like everywhere else in life we're looking for hot chicks... so if a hot chick came in, you couldn't say "Look! A hot chick!  Wearing a skirt!" so we came up with the idea to say "Numba Nine.... Numba Nine..." which was code word for "A Hot chick Is nearby". 

That's one measure of immaturity I'll probably never outgrow. 

sh*t, I really dig 'Flying'.

I like Flying.
In fact, I might as well say this: Magical Mystery Tour is my favourite Beatles album!


Interesting. Not a bad idea at all...
Still, I promised myself never to listen to that cursed song again!

Revolution 9 might be crap but it fits perfectly on the White Album, and anyone who's ever used The White Album as their personal soundtrack while reading Helter Skelter knows the whole other dimension the track takes on.....

Yeah me too... it's just the most boring part of MMT (the movie).  ;D

What's everybody think about Your Mother Should Know?  I really like it, it's schmoozy and your typical Paul thing, but it's juuuussssttt enough that it's really good.  Kind of like Uncle Albert, it's very Paulish and you roll your eyes, but it's pretty damn good because he doesn't go overboard. 

‍

I love it.....

It could have been such a schmoozy little throwaway thing if it weren't for the arrangement which gets almost creepy at the second "Let's all get up and dance to a song" part...

Not a fan at all to be honest - I think it's the vocals! They just REALLY annoy me!

As for other Beatles songs I'm not a fan there are a few and I'm sure I've forgotten some but I really can't stand:

"You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)"
"Revolution 9"
"Wild Honey Pie"
"Maxwell's Silver Hammer"
"Why Don't We Do It in the Road?"
"Mean Mr. Mustard"
"Polythene Pam"

There are also several songs that I'm not really a fan of but I think there is usually at least SOMETHING I can enjoy in most Beatles songs - very similar to the Beach Boys in that respect.

That's a good list. All pretty crappy songs that would have been laughed out of the park if not by the sacred Beatles....

Mean Mr. Mustard/Polythene Pam at least kick pretty hard thanks to Ringo (who, of course, gets little thanks for his efforts)

They do all those crappy songs with more style than any other band could manage. I love all of them.

Hey, just because I think they're crappy doesn't mean I still don't love them!!!

I'm the guy who's all-time favorite Beach Boys track is Getcha Back, after all!

Love Getcha Back as well!
Aside from Mike's nasal vocals, how can anyone consider that song to be crappy?

No idea, but I think, by and large, folks have started to come around :)

I'm sure Beatles has worse songs, but I pretty much hate these:

No Reply
All You Need Is Love
P.S. I Love You
Ob-la-di Ob-la-da

Overrated cheesy crap. Every Beach Boys' hit song is better than these, especially Kokomo.

One of the few Beatles songs I dislike:

Blue Jay Way.

I love Blue Jay Way!
I love everything from Magical Mystery Tour, my favourite Beatles record!

Though I honestly dislike the White Album, except for a few songs off it.

Love the Beatles, however... I really can't stand It's All Too Much. Hate everything about it.

I like pretty much everything Lennon and McCartney did with the Beatles, but with George it's more hit and miss. Some of his stuff is great, some of it... meh.

George has made better songs, but I don't mind It's All Too Much. Only A Northern Song is an infinitely superior song, however.
In fact, if it weren't for half of the album by George Martin, and already released songs Yellow Sumbarine and All You Need Is Love being added, I would consider Yellow Submarine to be one of the better Beatles albums!

I like George's songwriting. In fact he's my favourite Beatle. Aside from a few terrible and forgettable solo albums, I disagree with how you consider George to be a hit and miss.

Pretty much agree with everything you said, only I don't care about various technical specifics like editing & so on. The "Flying" scene was rather cool, I thought. The real drag was going to appear near the end, when that stupid song about cutie came on. Luckily, "Your Mother Should Know" makes me forget that that scene even existed, it's such a beautiful number both in terms of singing (1 of the best vocals by Paul ever!) & decorations! Amazing song.

"Yellow Submarine" is great! Who are your favorite hero(es)? Mine are Blue Meanies & Jeremy (my fave name of that creature).

Re George's material within the Beatles, I'm not a fan of "Something", "Don't Bother Me", "Long, Long, Long", "I Need You" & "Only a Northern Song". My absolute fave are "Here Comes the Sun", "Piggies", "Within You Without You", "Blue Jay Way" & "Old Brown Shoe" - loved them since 1st discovering the band.

As to "Wild Honey Pie", methinks a little dash of quirkiness won't be too bad for ears. (Or eyes, if we talk about psychedelic films.)

  Always liked "Don't Bother Me"!

   Worst Beatles tunes, IMO

 1. Do You Want to Know a Secret? 
 2. A Taste of Honey
 3. Mr Moonlight
 4. What Goes On?
 5. You Like Me too Much
 6. It's Only Love
 7. Tell Me What You See
 8. Being for the Benefit of Mr Kite
 9. Good Morning Good Morning
 10.Hello Goodbye
 11.Within You Without You
 12. Revolution 9
 13.Wild Honey Pie
 14.Ob-La-Di-Ob-La-Da
 15. Maxwell's Silver Hammer

Mean Mr. Mustard has to get respect in my opinion just because of that Melody!  It's great.  It's pretty agressive too, I like it, always have.

I can't imagine somebody not liking "No Reply", I think I've had that one stuck in my head for 20 years.

Something is pretty overdone (just because everybody else has recorded it) but when I listen to it, I listen to passive-agressive Paul McCartney trying his best to steal the song with the bassline.  What was up with that?

He's either 1. Truly trying to make it the best song he can, or

2. Trying to upstage George, who wrote the song. 

I'm leaning towards #2 knowing Paul's state of mind at the time.  I can respect it though... I can just see him doing that, even if it was subconscious. 

In my opinion, possibly Paul's greatest Beatles bassline, up there with "Paperback Writer" and "Rain". 

Revolution 9 is the absolute WORST thing they ever attempted.   Wild Honey Pie and Within You Without You are a close second and third.

 Beatles For Sale ...just imagine it with "Eight Days a Week"* and "Matchbox" while losing "Mr Moonlight" and maybe another of the covers. I seldom play this game with The Beatles, but great album. I've always liked it, but the band did make better records.


 * Think I meant "I Feel Fine"/"She's a Woman", the new non-LP single in Dec 1964. "Eight Days" is on the album.

Savoy Truffle
Piggies
Don't Pass Me By
Good Night
I Want to Hold Your Hand

Good Night is a masterpiece.

George didn't write No Reply.  John did.

Just listened to "What's the New Mary Jane" for the first time in a while. I'm amazed that John was so very adamant about getting this song released. It's kinda not that great.


Edit: Hmm, maybe I need to be high...

I think Ron was referring to "Something"

Also, I just thought of another song I'm not a fan of - "I'll Get You". It's actually not THAT bad but I hate the "oh yeah, oh yeah" parts enough to make me not want to hear it.

Never considered that he was trying to upstage George. I'm inclined to disagree, just cuz of how much the bassline improves the song for me. If I could have written any bassline, I would written the one to Something. If you play bass and have worked your way around the fretboard on Something, you will understand what I mean when I say the note choices are just brilliant. And even if you don't, just listen to it! Crazy good.

Wow, I haven't yet heard the whole White album but that song was BAD! Why in the hell did they release stuff like that. It's a shame because that album has the same time a lot of great material.

I can't understand how anybody can hate Revolution 9.  Maybe find it unsettling (it's supposed to be unsettling) but I've always found it pretty awesome.

Ditto that. I even love both Honey Pies. (Long Time is the only one I am ever tempted to skip).

Love Ob la di Ob la da!

And Maxwell's Silver hammer!

Fun stuff!

Sir Paul has a cool YouTube of Ob la di

Maybe cheese but so well done!  ;) As duly-noted above.

There is a "read of the lyrics" by Sir Paul...very clever (Maxwell's Silver Hammer)...as well as "Why Don't We Do it in the road."

Adailton Lacerda channel on YouTube.  

I can understand why people wouldn't like Revolution #9. If you want an ice cream sundae with strawberries and someone gives you German chocolate cake, it doesn't much matter how good the cake is: you wanted the sundae. Honestly, that's how I look at many musical disagreements. They depend on what the listener wanted more than (or at least as much as) what the musician provided.

Many tunes I love are being listed here as "worsts," too. Oh well. I won't bother naming all of those with whom I disagree, but I do want to say how much I agree with Ron about "Mean Mr. Mustard." It's fantastic. Love the groove. Love the scratchy vocal. Love the chromatic chord runs. Love the simple vocal harmony on the second verse. LOVE the time sig change. (I feel like BW when he talks about liking Spector: i liked the music, I like how he looked, i liked how he dressed, i just liked him!)

Dude they were all on drugs...

I usually fall asleep, and then wake up on the next song.

You mean "Long, Long, Long"?  Dude, that's one of George Harrison's greatest songs.

Besides the lack of melody?

I've honestly never heard anybody badmouth that song before.  I think it's just breathtakingly beautiful.  Elliott Smith used to close his concerts with a cover of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehanwikt8qI

Maybe... It bores the bejeezus out of me though...

I agree that it is horrible and drawn out.  Not a good mix.   I always skip it, Revolution 9, Wild Honey Pie and Goodnight.

Magical Mystery Tour is my favorite too.  I see it as their most consistent album of their later period.  And their most consistently impressive album overall.  The walrus thing is a bit dorky, but it's a nice groove, I suppose.  There's some moving stuff on this album -- which, to me, is rare for the Beatles.  Like Abbey Road, there's something nice going on -- it's as deep as they ever got, I think anyway.

The "White" album is snotty.  I'll just say "the end was nigh."  A few good songs but they're tossed in with a lot of hackneyed ideas.  I can't decide if it's pretentious -- or just a sack of dirty laundry.

 :lol

Very few Beatles numbers I dislike, although Let It Be is erratic to a degree. I think the worst sounding number they ever released was "Hold Me Tight", Paul sounds out of tune on it or something, maybe he had a cold. It sticks out more because the rest of that album (With the Beatles UK version) is just so strong, vocally especially.

So what? It could be Brian Wilson or my other favorite, NRBQ, covering it but nothing would convince me of listening to that bore, unless my own opinion of the song changes in the future. Of eastern-flavored songs I'm most keen on "Instant Light". Now that is beautiful & catchy one.

MMT is insanely great! Agree with Mr. Bag's sentiment regarding White Album too.

Revolution #9
It's All Too Much
Only a Northern Song
Mr.  Moonlight
Dizzie Miss Lizzie

Can't agree on those two. "It's All Too Much" is a gas!

Maybe you prefer Steve Hillage's version (a gas in its own right):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM9oNigAIrI

Holy crap, that drum sound blows!  Sounds like banging on metal garbage cans!  Makes me want to re-think my choice now...

Run for Your Life "wins" hands down. What a cringeworthy song.
There are other Beatles songs that I don't care for but this sticks out like a sore thumb, being on the Rubber Soul album.
That song is why that album doesn't make my top 5 Beatles albums list.

Imho the Fab4 are usually at their best in their more whimsical things, and at their worst in the slow/"serious" numbers. I think songs like Michelle and Let It Be, for example, are very overrated (my sugar detector beeps wildly on them).
However, the one which makes me really cringe is "The Long and Winding Road". Brian should have covered it in GIOMH. :P

Yes, that one. ;D

Hats off to Phil Spector for doing the right thing and laying it on thicker than thick rather than trying to save the unsavable with a few deft touches.